.

Just got my Surefire SOCOM RC2 stamp back and I'm going back and forth on which mount to use on a 10.5" Noveske barrel.  I already have a Closed Tine FH on hand but I'm debating whether to go with the SFMB Muzzle Brake for the additional "baffles" or even the 3 prong.  

Has it been decided yet which mount is best with regards to overall suppression as well as suppressor longevity?  I got rid of a WarComp after reading the other thread discussing "leakage" at the mount so that's out.


Also - Before anyone asks….  My stamp came back exactly 5 months after the check was cashed using Silencer Shop.  LOLz
Thanks!




.-.-.-.

Ive got a 10.3 DD that I run a Surefire 556 rc2 as well.

I prefer the SF muzzle brake myself for the same reason, a extra baffle to give me some longevity.
God help you if you shoot it without the can on. Rattle your teeth out of your head!

Nothing wrong with the closed tine FH.  The inconel stack Surefire uses is very durable. For mag dumps on a machine gun the brake has benefit as a sacrificial baffle.  Otherwise it isn’t needed and can increase back pressure and as noted is concussive by itself.  If you plan to shoot at all without suppressor a blast shroud makes the brake tolerable but is more money, more weight, something else to kit, and does little for flash (knocks down side lobes of fire but still puts a big ball out front for most loads).  Timing muzzle brakes is a task some people obsess over as well.

I have the brake for the 10.5 I keep suppressed 99% of the time, mostly to act as sacrificial baffle because it helps me sleep at night. Unsuppressed that thing will knock fillings loose

On longer uppers, I don't care as much - mix of warcomps, 3-prongs and closed-tine.

EDIT: I will also add the can's built like a tank so unless you have a ridiculous firing schedule (i.e. full-auto dumping all the time, tens of thousands of rounds over the can's life, etc.) it probably doesn't matter all that much which muzzle device you use. They're all decent, don't think too hard, you won't hurt the can.

If I was going to make a 100% suppresses gun I would buy a thread on for less than half the price.

Closed Tine is my vote, I have two of them and they work good.

This.  The CT works well.  I’ve got pretty much all the different Surefire muzzle devices and I tend to like the CT.  The 3 and 4 prong like to focus  wear on the baffles.  The CT’s don’t do that as bad, plus aren’t obnoxious like the brake when you’re not running the can.  I do have a brake on my Colt 6921SP (10”) and my 6945 (10.3”).  The brake is BRUTAL on a 10” AR.

^^^ agreed on all counts ^^^ CT or legacy CT which allows one to twist the suppressor off if it gets stuck, clockwise to avoid loosening the FH. Granted it won’t index.

The MB is so brutal, see pic, yes that’s flames. I even had a couple cut down to single port brakes and it helped, but I still went with FHs.

https://imgur.com/a/8hal0Bz

I’ve got both the Socom RC2 and Socom mini in 5.56

The extra baffle is an advantage but on longer guns (14.5) I’ve got 3 prong Warcomp because I only shoot suppressed 25% of the time.

If it’s a 10.5 and you are doing 100% suppressed I wouldn’t worry about a flash hider.

I run the brake on my 10.5 with my RC2

Thanks for all the replies!!  Sounds like the CT is good to go with the MB coming in a very close second if one ever plans to shoot unsuppressed.  I’ll take the 3 prong out of the running for now due to what was said about the more focused wear.

I don’t really plan to shoot the 10.5” unsuppressed ever again due to that crazy muzzle blast so I could probably still use the MB.  I also have 14.5” and 18” uppers that currently wear CT mounts.

All true, but apparently Wolf Gold ammo makes a huge difference even after a few hundred rounds based on some other threads.  The amount of wear sub 500rds of Wolf Gold was more on SF and KAC cans than 5000 rounds of regular M193

As others have said, the SFMB is soooo not enjoyable without a can so mine is coming off and is being swapped for a CTFH. If you’re doing suppressed only then the brake is fine, but I like to shoot without occasionally.

I run the brake because the SF cans are NOT built like tanks. Just because they’re heavy, doesn’t mean the resist wear and muzzle erosion well. Their good mufflers, but there’s better options. The 3 prong FH mounts really wear the blast baffle.

I switched from 3 prong to CT. Honestly mostly for aesthetics, I grew up on A2s.

I don’t always shoot with a can and run a MINI on my 11.5 and 14.5.

I fired a MB on a 10.3 once while inside a vehicle. I had ears on but the concussion.....

Never again.

You can take a lot of metal out of the can before performance suffers.

The CTFH is the lightest and shortest SF muzzle device by a good bit.

It won't focus the blast like the pronged ones and besides the muzzle brake should be the most durable design.  

But it doesn't have the labyrinth seals that the brake and pronged ones do - may get a little more gas leak due to that.

I think it and the 3 prongs are the only real option for a short barrel suppressed build.  

The muzzle brake is simply not needed.  SF cans last 40,000+ rounds before needing a recore.

The Jay Situation aka Pew Science has a good article about SF muzzle devices.  He ripped the Warcomp as basically not suitable for a suppressor.  Praised the 3-prong.  I would suspect the closed tine is good and the break is bad, based on his initial testing.  The testing was not really of the mounts, but if the RC2 762 can, but he used two different mounts and the collateral fallout was quite positive fir the standard three prong and not good for a ported break.

Correct.

The Surefire mounts without the so-called "labrynth seals" allow gas to escape from the mount interface.  With the WARCOMP, the problem is exacerbated, because in addition to lack of seals, the porting in close proximity to where the seals should be located result in almost direct gas venting.

The at-ear waveforms measured during testing mimic text-book shocks at the shooter's head position.  This is well studied by PEW Science and discussed directly with Surefire, specifically with the designer of the silencer and mounts.  WARCOMP mounts are intended for mostly un-suppressed use with suppressed use being only seldom frequency.  

With regard to comparing non-WARCOMP mounts that do have the seals (e.g. 3-prong flash hider vs a brake with the seals) - the differences will be (1) backpressure and (2) blast baffle erosion under high round count.  3-prong flash hider wins (1) and brake wins (2).  Whether or not (2) matters is up for debate, due to Surefire re-coring your silencer if it matters, so really, probably not an issue for the majority of people.  (1) is going to matter much more for many people.  

I recommend Surefire flash hiders with the seals for suppressed use with Surefire silencers, for this reason.  The data supports this.

Jay
PEW Science


edit:

here is a photo from an old ARFCOM thread that someone annotated:

Damn I wish I could talk about all this. But NDAs are life...

If you're referring to Surefire working on an improvement to their mount sealing, they told me that they are, and I am not under NDA.  I made a suggestion for improvement that they liked but said they already had an idea.  I was happy when they told me that, because I think other than the sealing issue, their mount is awesome.  If it sealed better, and needed less maintenance, it would probably be one of the best secondary-retention rifle silencer mounts on the market due to the ease of mounting, repeatable POI shift due to index, and a very good performing flash hider for unsuppressed use, etc.  I think as it stands right now, if you clean it and use one of the better sealing mounts, it's still up there as a good mount.

Jay
PEW Science

Do you know if this would improve upon their existing Socom 2 mounts and have backwards compatibility, or are they working on a totally new mount?

Not sure, sir.  I did not receive many details, but it certainly piqued my interest!

I thought I had a bright idea to improve it and I was caught off guard when I was told they were doing something.  I did not follow up; fairly certain they would have told me if they thought I should know!  Don't think I have that need! hahaha

One would think you could do something as simple as using AR bolt gas rings around those dang seal grooves, you know? I feel like that could actually be tried with some steel rings by people right now, as an off-the-shelf McMaster Carr hunt type of thing.

Jay
PEW Science

I agree 100%. This is why I now use KAC suppressors---the mounts.

@KalmanPhilter

You say the brake increases back pressure. Does this apply to brakes and cans in general? Or is this specific to the Surefire brake?

I don’t have any SureFire suppressors, but I’ve seen it (felt it) with a brake in my Specwar 762 versus the open 3-prong flash hider.  My sense is the more plates in the brake the more it disrupts flow down the stack allowing the can to hold pressure a little longer.  I haven’t noticed it with the Griffin mini brake but that was also on a different suppressor.